The big difference today is small fiber lasers. Each fiber individually generates at most 10 kw, but you can combine their beams to get greater power output. Yet you can still cool each fiber individually, which prevents the overheating problems that bedeviled older lasers.

The above is from the article and guess which company revolutionized fiber laser technology and its industrial application.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPG_Photonics

http://www.ipgphotonics.com/

Not long ago some clown dismissed the Russian link by harping on the company's US base of operations. That is a totallyirrelevant detail.

Looking at the program of modernized military transport aircraft Il-76MD-90A at Ulyanovsk "Aviastar" I have the impression that a lot of made aircraft will be used for further improvements in special modifications. This is understandable - in the background of a sufficiently large fleet of Il-76MD in the Russian Air Force, the continuing airworthiness of which almost acquired is at 123 ARZ the flow (annual passes major overhaul of 12 cars), the number of available tankers Il-78 / 78M and AWACS aircraft A-50 / 50U is extremely small. According to the data of the first known serial Il-76MD-90A №01-03 referred to Beriev for completion as the new AWACS aircraft A-100 of the ROC "Premier". As reported the second production aircraft (№01-04) was also passed in April this year, not to the Air Force, and to Taganrog to create on its basis a laser complex airborne flying laboratory in the development of the A-60. As follows from the Beriev published online procurement information, new aircraft with laser weapons will receive the name of A-60SE [SE - probably from the name of the ROC "Falcon Echelon"].

it is cool until some mad Bond Villain gets a hold of it and threatens to destroy the world with it...

BTW it is a forum rule that your first post should be an introduction on the introductions and rules section of the forum.

Please take the time to create a new thread for yourself and to read the rules as well.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

a laser. it's easy to escape. i told once how.... you have a skin made of the rare element glass put on the missile and under a mirror exacly like those in the laser. and since the rare element resist to high temperature they can be used exacly the same at pak fa

andalusia wrote:Should Russia be concerned about the US developing lasers and putting them on aircraft? Are the Russians investing in laser technology?http://www.vocativ.com/316949/laser-weapon-airplane/

Not at the moment. Airborne laser weapons suffer from four major handicaps:

1) Stability. To achieve burn-through of the target, the laser needs to shine continuously at the same point. Assuming it is firing at a 'dumb' target such as a drone or missile, air turbulence will make the firing platform quiver constantly in three dimensions making pinpoint targeting very tough, assuming the beam projector has exceptionally precise (and rapid skewing) tracking. A piloted plane would probably go into evasive manoeuvres as soon as it detected the laser beam, making burn-through far more difficult.

2) Air quality. Water vapour significantly atrophies the energy in a laser beam. Whilst high altitude flight above 10k metres is relatively clear of pollutants and vapour, all it would do is push the theatre of operations (at least during the approach phase) back below or within cloud level.

3) Range of engagement. A laser whilst capable of heating/cutting at short distances, cannot hope to match the reach of a long or even medium range missile. Even clear air still atrophies beam energy and collimation spreads quickly over range.

4) Heat dissipation. Lasers are very inefficient energy-wise. Most of the power supplied to a laser system ends up as waste heat. Now aboard a naval vessel, you can dump this excess heat straight into the sea as water is an excellent heat sink. A plane however can only rely on air flow which is far worse at absorbing heat, especially at high altitudes where the atmosphere is thinner. Also bear in mind that modern fighter jets are already straining their cooling systems just running their radars.

Those are the main difficulties. Others are the need to integrate a lot of heavy capacitors from which the energy for the laser pulse is stored, additional electrical generation from the engines guzzling fuel, partial mirroring if wavelength of the laser is known plus ablative layers which can 'foul' the beam before contact, speeding up AAM missiles to reduce closing time, the limited power output of the weapon due to poor energy generation of the hosting airframe, and so on.

All in all they are not really a threat when mounted on planes, at least not against other planes. Possibly against AAM until designers incorporate laser detection and in-flight jinking/spinning to increase its lifespan to reach its target, or if the laser is only intended to burn out optical sensors. Even then, a simple aerial tactic might be to simply fire off two missiles to swamp the laser defence.

Laser systems aboard ships are a different matter, as vessels have far greater power generation, greater firing stability and easy access to water cooling.

andalusia wrote:Should Russia be concerned about the US developing lasers and putting them on aircraft? Are the Russians investing in laser technology?http://www.vocativ.com/316949/laser-weapon-airplane/

Not at the moment. Airborne laser weapons suffer from four major handicaps:

1) Stability. To achieve burn-through of the target, the laser needs to shine continuously at the same point. Assuming it is firing at a 'dumb' target such as a drone or missile, air turbulence will make the firing platform quiver constantly in three dimensions making pinpoint targeting very tough, assuming the beam projector has exceptionally precise (and rapid skewing) tracking. A piloted plane would probably go into evasive manoeuvres as soon as it detected the laser beam, making burn-through far more difficult.

2) Air quality. Water vapour significantly atrophies the energy in a laser beam. Whilst high altitude flight above 10k metres is relatively clear of pollutants and vapour, all it would do is push the theatre of operations (at least during the approach phase) back below or within cloud level.

3) Range of engagement. A laser whilst capable of heating/cutting at short distances, cannot hope to match the reach of a long or even medium range missile. Even clear air still atrophies beam energy and collimation spreads quickly over range.

4) Heat dissipation. Lasers are very inefficient energy-wise. Most of the power supplied to a laser system ends up as waste heat. Now aboard a naval vessel, you can dump this excess heat straight into the sea as water is an excellent heat sink. A plane however can only rely on air flow which is far worse at absorbing heat, especially at high altitudes where the atmosphere is thinner. Also bear in mind that modern fighter jets are already straining their cooling systems just running their radars.

Those are the main difficulties. Others are the need to integrate a lot of heavy capacitors from which the energy for the laser pulse is stored, additional electrical generation from the engines guzzling fuel, partial mirroring if wavelength of the laser is known plus ablative layers which can 'foul' the beam before contact, speeding up AAM missiles to reduce closing time, the limited power output of the weapon due to poor energy generation of the hosting airframe, and so on.

All in all they are not really a threat when mounted on planes, at least not against other planes. Possibly against AAM until designers incorporate laser detection and in-flight jinking/spinning to increase its lifespan to reach its target, or if the laser is only intended to burn out optical sensors. Even then, a simple aerial tactic might be to simply fire off two missiles to swamp the laser defence.

Laser systems aboard ships are a different matter, as vessels have far greater power generation, greater firing stability and easy access to water cooling.

It only get worse if you try to use lasers to kill incoming hypersonic weapons. A missile flying at mach 6-7 at low altitudes is going to require some serious thermal shielding to cope with heating from air friction, and that shielding will further degrade a lasers performance by increasing the energy needed to achieve a burn-thru. More energy required + shorter time available for engagement + tracking difficulties = an inefficient system to defeat hypersonics

It took less than 10 hours after the SU-24 was brought down by Turkish jet to track and destroy this satellite.

Russians do have ground based ASAT lasers . We dont know what kind of lasers destroyed this satellites. Surely the targeting and the destruction of satellite was done by Russian ASAT lasers.The second satellite a less powerful laser pulse was used because indications are this laser attack generated less debrie in the orbit. A more sophisticated laser for that matter.

I remember there was a famous video in the 80s or 90s showing a rocket booster being destroyed by a laser... and it was quite impressive until you actually looked properly at what was happening.

Basically the booster tube was pressure filled with air to simulate it being full of fuel and there were large I beams of steel on top of it held in place with steel cables.

the laser... which was up very close and concentrated on one point of the booster for some time eventually popped the outer surface and with a large blast of the interior gas escaping the heavy I beams crushed the booster with wire cables flying everywhere... very impressive but a poor example of an effective laser weapon.

For one thing the Soviets could easily add a small amount of spin to their rockets so the laser will not be able to concentrate on one point for long enough to penetrate through.

Secondly... and most importantly... to hit a solid or liquid filled booster you need to have your laser right next to the launch site... with incoming warheads the only target is the warhead... which will be covered in an ablative material that resists heat. Ie you are trying to penetrate a heat shield with a weapon that defeats its target with heat.... I call that pissing on your own shoes.

The Russians are much more sensible and have said publicly that their current experiments are focussed on defeating EO systems on recon aircraft (manned and unmanned) and also on satellites... a much more sensible and practical goal IMHO.

eventually they will be powerful and effective and cheap enough to use to shoot down aircraft but for the present Missiles already do that effectively enough.

Invest in them, but don't expect miracles.

BTW this talk of destroying satellites with lasers is amusing... a laser will concentrate energy on one point on a satellite and can do damage but to actually blow a satellite to bits reminds me how every car in a hollywood movie bursts into a huge fireball when shot... at least in a car there is a tank full of petrol... in a satellite there will be batteries and solar panels... ie nothing that will blow the entire platform into small pieces when hit with lots of heat.

A laser can be used to disable a satellite and even damage sensors to make them ineffective, but to blow it to bits is just BS.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

GarryB wrote:I remember there was a famous video in the 80s or 90s showing a rocket booster being destroyed by a laser... and it was quite impressive until you actually looked properly at what was happening.

Basically the booster tube was pressure filled with air to simulate it being full of fuel and there were large I beams of steel on top of it held in place with steel cables.

the laser... which was up very close and concentrated on one point of the booster for some time eventually popped the outer surface and with a large blast of the interior gas escaping the heavy I beams crushed the booster with wire cables flying everywhere... very impressive but a poor example of an effective laser weapon.

For one thing the Soviets could easily add a small amount of spin to their rockets so the laser will not be able to concentrate on one point for long enough to penetrate through.

Secondly... and most importantly... to hit a solid or liquid filled booster you need to have your laser right next to the launch site... with incoming warheads the only target is the warhead... which will be covered in an ablative material that resists heat. Ie you are trying to penetrate a heat shield with a weapon that defeats its target with heat.... I call that pissing on your own shoes.

The Russians are much more sensible and have said publicly that their current experiments are focussed on defeating EO systems on recon aircraft (manned and unmanned) and also on satellites... a much more sensible and practical goal IMHO.

eventually they will be powerful and effective and cheap enough to use to shoot down aircraft but for the present Missiles already do that effectively enough.

Invest in them, but don't expect miracles.

BTW this talk of destroying satellites with lasers is amusing... a laser will concentrate energy on one point on a satellite and can do damage but to actually blow a satellite to bits reminds me how every car in a hollywood movie bursts into a huge fireball when shot... at least in a car there is a tank full of petrol... in a satellite there will be batteries and solar panels... ie nothing that will blow the entire platform into small pieces when hit with lots of heat.

A laser can be used to disable a satellite and even damage sensors to make them ineffective, but to blow it to bits is just BS.

You can still do that. Satellites contain propellant for manuvering and if you hit the tank... you know what. Or even Batteries... depending on the battery type, its chemistry can do a lot of damage...

Most of the propulsion is compressed gas... it could be nitrogen, which is totally inert... so even if hit directly there wont be an explosion... just an energetic venting of gas.

A battery contains volatile materials but at worst you will only again get a blast of material like a jet and any fire would die down rapidly in space.

To make it explode it needs a very large charge of HE of some type... something they would not bother with as it would seriously reduce the performance of the satellite having a lot of dead weight on board.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Well batteries are comparativelly big and heavy on satellites. Because of the temperature i guess a lead acid or some similar chemistry is used in order to store as much charge as possible having very low ambient temperature. Then there is the problem of radiation - which you have to take into account. It could have happened that a direct hit to a battery caused a large chunk of the satellite body to rip of but total disintegration - i would say journalists have exagerated that. Nonetheless it disabled the target quite effectivelly.

Batteries really don't like cold temperatures... batteries of all types would not take the cold of space for long without serious insulation and heating systems... which suggests to me good protection from a laser...

I would agree the journalists exaggerated... that is what they do sadly.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Russian aerospace forces are developing this laser weapon based on the syrian experience.They need an instant attack weapon to take down enemy aircrafts flying in E.U baltics, turkey Qatar everywhere.For this purpose they are developing system which will instantly attack all the enemy aircrafts flying in mideast ,Europe or even atlantic

The max range of its laser canons could be like 1000 kms.The working range could be like 500-600 kms.

S-300 and S-400 are also the same weapons.. but they will not be able to attack in seconds.They take like 3-4 minutes to attack one single aircraft.

Where A-60 will be able to attack all flying aircrafts within seconds.

The specs of A-60 are classified , but after syrian experience Russ genstaff are realizing that containment, localizing of conflicts can better be acheived by squadron of laser weapons.

Because U.S always flies its small aircrafts out of third countries.Attacking them a political mine filed.Instead of attacking the airbases , naval base , Russian laser crafts will directly attack enemy aircraft when they are airborne.

This road map or thinking is gaining ground within russian military/This is the dominant postion of russian air force.that javing airborne laser weapon will increase their chances of containment of air war of third countries

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that the Russian armed forces received prototypes of laser weapons. According to the official, it goes about combat, rather than experimental weapons that have already been taken into service by the Russian army.

Speaking at a meeting dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center in Sarov, Yuri Borisov said: "They are not experimental, but combat weapons that we have already been passed into service. The weapons based on new physical principles have become reality today. The technology existed before, but now is the time when they are used in practice," the general said apparently making references to the technologies that were developed in the USSR."These high-tech weapons will largely determine the image of the Russian army under the new state arms program before 2025," he added. -

Some hard testing of laser weapons must be going on at shary shagan , kapustin yaar.

No wthe problem comes is that it is line of sight weapon.Those lasers cannot be used against ground targets. Russia also does not collateral damage. Few kalibres can destroy whole naval bases and air bases but russia does not want collateral damage. THe idea might be to take the laser staion in IL-476 and destroy selective targets in the theatre air space.

BUt I personally would suggest destroying patriots air defense batteries, fighter jets ,tomahawk launchers in turkey, qatar or anywhere from IL-476 that would save the collateral damage and also would nto be a political minefield.If a kalibre is shot over al-udaid air base then thousands of U,.S qatar people will die.Kalibre packs upto 600 kgs (almost small nuke).

THese weapons would be needed only in full blown conflict where teh complete infrastructure including massive civilian casualties at teh air bases or naval bases of U.S in third countries.We know qatar, Suadi ,turkey are involved in business relation with RUssia .. why would Russia attack those countries whose people are engaged with Russians with huge amount of finance.

Syria is a different place where complte infrastructure is destroyed hence bombs, missiles dont make much of a difference.Si is the case with UKraine

. WHere as these days conflicts happens only with f-16 , f-22, Awacs planes.SO destroying them (when they are grounded) will result in minimum casualties and also permamnently damage these U.S assets.BUt let us see how RUssian MOD uses the laser program to fight future wars.

Russia’s new combat aircraft A-60 to be armed with high accuracy laser — KRETThe airborne laser will be so powerful that the plane itself will have to be properly protected

MOSCOW, September 26. /TASS/. Russia’s newly-developed combat aircraft A-60 will be capable of destroying enemy targets with a high accuracy laser, an adviser to the deputy CEP of Russia’s Concern of Radio-Electric Technologies (KRET, an affiliate of Rostec), Vladimir Mikheyev, has told TASS.

"It will boast super-accurate navigation. The crew are to be able to precisely determine the plane’s position to direct the narrow laser beams at the selected targets," Mikheyev said.

The airborne laser will be so powerful that the plane itself will have to be properly protected.

"We are aware that the plane’s avionics will have to be reworked to suit the new tasks. All of the plane’s crucial systems will have to be protected from the on-board laser weapons," he explained.

KRET is the manufacturer of an overwhelming majority of avionics installed on Russia’s aircraft. The new plane will be very special and equipped with a heavy-duty electric power supply system and protection from enemy radio-electronic jamming.

Also, the plane will have a very powerful onboard defense system providing protection from the most sophisticated means of attack.

"I believe that it will carry a combined complex of radio-electronic warfare with some Vitebsk and Khibin components and a number of other effective protection systems," Mikheyev said.

Earlier, a source in the military-industrial complex said that Russia was working on a plane armed with new generation laser weapons. Open sources refer to this project as A-60. According to mass media it is being carried out within the framework of Sokol-Echelon concept.

Attempts at creating an airborne laser were made back in the Soviet era. The first sample of the A-60 aircraft, based on the Ilyushin-76MD transport plane was flight-tested in 1981. Several years ago the media said the project, mothballed for quite a while, was resumed. The United States conducted its own research into an airborne laser. The program that produced an experimental combat aircraft, Boeing YAL-1, was curtailed at the end of 2011.

The latest information coming out from Russian electronic company KRET suggest that the IL-476 laser will a type of OMEGA laser.It will be powered by super electric generators. Multi domain laser equipment. Other kinds of laser is also possible .But Electric laser generate the least beam divergence and DILATION(spread of the cross section of the neam) for thousands of kms inside dense atmosphere.